So I guess, you are not +1 for the XML schema. Because in that case I
wouldn't need
to go into the details of XMLBeans.
Sandro
Christophe Lombart wrote:
Ok so let's go for the proposal #3. At least, we are agree on the
components organisations. That's maybe the more important. It should
be nice if you can commit your code in a branch.
Tomorrow, I'm going to commit new stuffs and I would like to send a
mail on the Jackrabbit mailing list in order to find more interested
guys.
Christophe
2005/8/22, Sandro Böhme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Christophe,
in my email from the 6.8. I wrote:
"+1 for 3. I'm not sure if it is needed to check my prototype in.
But for me it's more about finding good arguments and consensus.
That would lead to a situation where everybody is willing to support the
way to go instead of
having one who is overruled and don't really understands why."
And in a later email:
"Hello Christophe,
if you are back from vacation and read my arguments and you are +1 for
Digester anyway, I'm
+0 for Digester for not slowing down the project. Basically because it
is only a matter of work
to keep the XML file specification in sync with the mapping class model
and it will not have
any impact to the user.
But at the moment I don't see any arguments contra XML schema."
regards,
Sandro
Christophe Lombart wrote:
Hi All,
If I follow this thread, here is the result :
proposal #3 : David, Oliver and myself.
Sandro ?
Christophe
2005/8/11, Oliver Kiessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I afraid with my simple mind I did not completely understand why the
user has to deal with the java classes generated
by XML beans. Do you mean something like a GUI that creates the mapping
xml file?
yes, a GUI is one example (also ant tasks, maven etc.). Instead of
having to write mappings by hand, one could generate them (by using
java classes). I think XML Beans makes it really easy to create
individual mappings.
oliver
